Thailand diabetes registry (TDR) project: clinical status and long term vascular complications in diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of the Thailand Diabetes Registry project were to identify the characteristics of Thai diabetic patients in tertiary care medical centers and to determine the extent of long term diabetic complications. The secondary objective aimed at building up and strengthening clinical research network among Thai experts in diabetes mellitus and collection of baseline data for future follow-up study. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sectional, multi-center, hospital-based diabetes registry was carried out from diabetes clinics of 11 tertiary centers. Demographic data, clinical status of diabetes and its complications were collected and analyzed for the prevalence of complications and risk factors. RESULTS: Nine-thousand-four-hundred-and-nineteen patients were registered for the project and 94.6% were type 2 diabetes. Mean +/- SD of age was 59.4 +/- 13.5 and duration of diabetes was and 10 +/- 7.6 years. Only 38.2% of the subjects achieved glycemic control of FPG under 130 mg/dl in only 30.7% had an HbA lc of less than 7%. The overall prevalence of dyslipidemia found in this population was 73.3%, hypertension was 63.3% and obesity (BMI >25 kg/m2) was 52.6%. Diabetic nephropathy was the most common complication accounting for 43.9% followed by retinopathy 30.7%, IHD 8.1% and cerebrovascular disease 4.4%. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of dyslipidemia and hypertension were high in this population, which may be associated with the high prevalence of diabetic complications. The unsatisfactory control of metabolic status may be due to aging and long duration of diabetic patients in this registry.

Thailand diabetes registry project: prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and associated factors in type 1 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and factors associated with Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) of type 1 diabetes mellitus in Thailand. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sectional, multicenter hospital-based study was carried out from April to December 2003. Diabetic patients in diabetic clinics of 11 tertiary centers were registered. Retinopathy was evaluated by the ophthalmologists. RESULTS: Seven thousand one hundred and ni neteen diabetic patients received retinal examination. The number of patients with type 1 diabetes was 347. The prevalence of DR in type 1 diabetes was 21.6% (75). This consisted of Non-Proliferative DR (NPDR) 10.9% (38) and Proliferative DR (PDR) 10.7%. Patients with DR were significantly older, predominantly female, longer duration ofdiabetes, had higher BMI, systolic Blood Pressure (BP), diastolic BP serum creatinine, and TriGlycerides (TG) levels than those without DR. Both groups ofpatients were not different in term ofplasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin levels. Although the patients with DR had a higher percentage of overt proteinuria than those without DR, there was no difference in percentage of patients with positive microalbuminuria in both groups. This may be explained by limitation of data (only 16% had results of microalbuminuria and 19% had results of proteinuria). After adjusted for duration of diabetes, serum creatinine and smoking status, factors (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) associated with DR were duration of diabetes 5-9.9 years (4.0 [1.49-10.91]), 10-14.9 years (6.86 [2.45-19.20]), 15-19.9 years (21.13 [7.22-61.78]), > or =20 years (22.15 [7.32-66.99]) when compared with duration of diabetes less than 5 years, serum creatinine >2 mg/dl (6.0 [2.09-17.22]) when compared with creatinine less than 2 mg/dl. From the presented model, age, gender, systolic BP >140 mmHg, diastolic BP >90 mmHg, serum TG and smoking status were not factors associated with DR. CONCLUSION: Diabetic retinopathy affects about one fifth of type 1 diabetic patients in our study. The authors found the factors associated with DR in type 1 DM were duration of diabetes and serum creatinine. Regular screening for DR and more aggressive management of metabolic factors should be done to reduce the prevalence ofDR.

Thailand diabetes registry project: prevalence, characteristics and treatment of patients with diabetic nephropathy.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and characteristics of patients with Diabetic Nephropathy (DN) and to evaluate adequacy of glycemic and blood pressure control of these patients in the authors' registry. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sectional, multicenter, hospital-based diabetic registry was carried out in diabetes clinics of 11 tertiary centers in Thailand. DN was defined as the presence of at least two out of three of these symptoms; positive microalbuminuria, positive dipstick proteinuria or creatinine levels equal to or greater than 2 mg/dl. One center that did not perform urine microalbumin measurement was excludedfrom the analysis. Overt nephropathy was defined as the presence of gross proteinuria or renal insufficiency. RESULTS: The study included 4875 patients (females 63.8%) with a mean (SD) duration ofdiabetes of 12.8 (8.2) years. The prevalence of DN was 42.9% (microalbuminuria 19.7% and overt nephropathy 23.2%). There were 373 (7.7%) patients with renal insufficiency and 24 (0.47%) with end-stage renal disease. By multivariate analysis, factors associated with DN were age, duration of diabetes, male sex, smoking, blood pressure, HbA1c, dyslipidemia and presence of diabetic retinopathy. Prevalence of ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease in patients with DN was 11.5% and 6.6% respectively. Mean (SD) HbA1c in patients with nephropathy was 8.2 (2.6)%. Only 25% of subject had HbA1c of less than 7%, 46% had blood pressure ofmore than 140/90 mmHg and 84% received at least one antihypertensive drug. However, the target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mmHg could be achieved in only 18% of these patients. The mean (SD) number of antihypertensive drugs was 1.7 (1.1). Nearly 60% of patients received either ACE inhibitors or ARBs. CONCLUSION: DN was very common. The overall picture of DN in the present survey suggests the seriousness of the problem and prompts more aggressive intervention.